"Cops knocking on doors of potential shooters, victims"

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Rabbit Talk Forum

Help Support Rabbit Talk Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Cottie

Cottie

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
2
Location
Rockford, IL
Fiancee just told me about this. It's funny...and creepy...and wrong...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/21396323-4 ... ctims.html

Funny
Working from a list of people deemed most likely to become shooters or victims, a Chicago Police commander is expected to start knocking on their doors Friday and deliver letters warning them not to commit any violent crimes.
Click to expand...
OK, that'll work like a charm. :lol:

Creepy
The heat list stems from work by Andrew Papachristos, a Yale University professor who studied murders between 2005 and 2010 on the West Side. He found 70 percent of the killings were in a social network of 1,600 people out of a total population of 80,000.
Click to expand...
Umm......I don't even...Social network?! KillerBook?

Wrong
As the program evolves, the department plans to identify “influentials” such as a coach or pastor who can come to the door with the police to help deliver the message. The influentials can direct the “hot person” in a positive direction, officials said.
Click to expand...
This is so unbelievably intrusive and disgusting.
 
I'm tempted to say "Oh, well, that's Chicago", but it bothers me that this is happening ANYWHERE in the U.S.
 
oh god.....if they come to my door im liable to act crazy ...I hope you fellow RT people will bail me out when I get arrested lol
 
I write horror and other speculative fiction... -rolls- Oh, that could be interesting. "I see you have an interest in poisonous plants, medieval torture, and rabbits? Are you a witch?"
 
They'd never catch Dexter anyhow! ;)

hehe, it's sort of funny. I wonder what they'd tell me...
 
Let's review...Chicago wants to lessen its gang violence. Good thought. They have a list of names of suspected violent gang members/friends. Good. They plan to go to these people's houses amd tell them...not to commit violence. And they plan to sometimes do this with a civilian along. Let's look at some reasonably possible outcomes.

The police and a minister show up at a house where a gang is in the process of getting ready to retaliate for a killing. The people inside are already angry and armed, and here come the police. Shots fly, and the minister gets shot.

The police show up at a house where a gang member used to live, but had to move after shooting another gang member. The police are armed with no warrant, just a letter. The door opens, and the person inside is upset. I see tazing and possible 4th Amendment violations.

The police show up at the house of a potential "victim". It just happens to be a rat a certain gang is looking for. And the police lead them right to him. The victim ends up just that...a victim.

This looks a lot like the movie Minority Report with its "pre-crime" unit. Scary stuff.
 
"“We are looking to reach out and touch those individuals who are responsible for the violence in the city,” Kirby said.
this is sick. Really, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty...

"The letters will warn those on the list that they will face the most serious charges possible if they’re arrested for a violent crime."
and I also thought that no matter who you are, if you commit violence then you will be charged accordingly. No one needs a letter to tell them that...

Do they really think that a pastor is going to have influence over a gang member??? I suppose the gang member would just all of a sudden have a change of heart and start listening to a pastor when one shows up on his doorstep with a police man warning him that they know he's a threat, and they'll take action against him!

And as for the "war" between the police and the gang, for "group accountability" that really really scares me.... aren't you innocent until proven guilty???? If you didn't commit a crime, then you shouldn't be punished!!!! How in the world is one person supposed to have enough power over someone else that they can convince a GANG MEMBER not to do a crime??? Usually you hear about rats/chickens in a gang getting beat up... And besides that, what in the world does "war" mean? That the police now can go kill all the gang members? That the police can lock up all the gang members for doing nothing??
 
I think it is a decent idea. The people are known to police to be in gangs or associated with gangs. Their violence is down 26% since the implementation of their plans to reduce gang violence. They already have community leaders, pastors helping, talking to their community, that is a good thing.

Is this really any different than 50 years ago when a police officer knew what teens or young adults were in trouble and warned them to stay out of trouble, that they would be watching them and they had better shape up? It is the same thing, just you are talking about a large city where fatalities were happening on a daily basis. It is a different time but honestly, we are out of jail space, something needs to be done.

Teens and 20 yr olds shouldn't be killing each other. They don't know anything else but perhaps this is a first really committed joint step between police and community to try to turn it around. Get the teens when they are young excited about something that is positive. All kids are excited by something but no one takes much interest in the inner city kids, not long term so it counts.

If I lived within a gang infested area I would expect the police to be trying various initiatives to reduce the violence. The benefit is for the community, there really is no down side to it.

The social network is referring to literally who is associating with who. Perhaps some teen gets a letter that his Mom sees and she is now able to straighten him out or takes extra precautions so he doesn't end up in a gang and in a body bag. Too many kids end up in body bags, no parent should have to bury a child.
 
I think Marinea summed up the problem with it quite well.

Sending cops door to door with nicely worded "please don't shoot someone" letters isn't going to fix them. Just like telling certain demographics to avoid certain areas at certain times didn't fix it. Maybe instead of trying to stop the criminals, they should work on stopping the creation of criminals.

Chicago has *major* problems that contribute to the criminal population. Cops won't even patrol certain neighborhoods at night. That's how it's different than 50 years ago. A cop tells a kid in Pilsen to watch his step, but that kid knows dern well the cop won't be there at 1AM when he does something bad. He also knows no one will snitch.
 
I don't know, they've reduced fatalities, crime, especially violent crime by 20 some percent in the last year. I think they are doing something right. Not doing anything wasn't working so to me, at least they are thinking outside the box, getting creative and trying. That is all they can do, try something, see if it makes a difference.

I do think some people may be influenced to at least think a little and perhaps change something if they think there is a good possibility of getting caught and being held responsible. Influence the ones leading perhaps change things up so they don't have as great of an influence on the next generation.

I don't know what the answer is but I give them credit for trying something new and putting effort into it. Sounds like they have the backing of the community and their support.
 
"Is this really any different from 50 years ago?"

Just a few differences: meth, crack, the proliferation of guns (despite Chicago's gun laws), the worsened economic factors, the failing schools, the seemingly cheapened value of life.

Yes, there is a slight down tick in their violent crime rate, but it will still be about THREE times the national average. This is despite their 17 and younger curfews, their strict gun laws, and despite local politicians asking for the National Guard to be sent in.

Do I think a gang member, probably already familiar with our judicial system, is going to change his or her path because of a strongly worded letter? Not in a million years. Do I think the cost of sending the police door to door to deliver these letters is the best use of the limited resources? Not in a million years.

Does something need to be done? Of course. I just question if this is the right thing. And I hate the idea of any of the possible outcomes I listed above coming to pass.
 
LauraNJ":3vmdrybz said:
I don't know, they've reduced fatalities, crime, especially violent crime by 20 some percent in the last year. I think they are doing something right. Not doing anything wasn't working so to me, at least they are thinking outside the box, getting creative and trying. That is all they can do, try something, see if it makes a difference.

I do think some people may be influenced to at least think a little and perhaps change something if they think there is a good possibility of getting caught and being held responsible. Influence the ones leading perhaps change things up so they don't have as great of an influence on the next generation.

I don't know what the answer is but I give them credit for trying something new and putting effort into it. Sounds like they have the backing of the community and their support.
Click to expand...
So here's my question: have they actually reduced crime rate, or have they reduced prosecution? I'm being 100% serious. Word on the street is the crime has actually gone up, but they're following through less.

And what "community" is backing this? Is it the same "community" that backed Rahm for major, which consisted largely of Chicago's usual powerful voting demographic (ie, the dead people)?
 
Marinea":3pm9assc said:
the proliferation of guns (despite Chicago's gun laws)
Click to expand...

The problem is not the number of guns, but the fact that the majority of guns are in the hands of criminals as opposed to law abiding citizens. If every-man had a gun, the cowardly hoodlums would think twice about attacking them.
 
To kind of demonstrate what I mean...

Chicago has been holding "gun buy backs". Bring in a gun, no questions asked, you get a $100 gift card. My fiancee was tipped off to this by a Chicago prosecutor. No questions asked, no names given, bring in a gun, get a Visa. He took several unregistered, unsellable guns there.

The vast majority of people there were regular citizens turning in their deceased family member's firearms, because, at the time, it was still technically illegal to own a gun in Chicago (let's not even get into their farcical "permit" system). Some of the guns he saw were worth hundreds - if not thousands - of dollars. But people didn't care, because they couldn't legally own them. Once the gun was within the building, it couldn't leave except with the PD even if the person who legally allowed to own them, because it would violate transport regulations (something they didn't tell anyone beforehand).

Not a single "banger" was turning in a gun. Any "bangers" present were turning in air/bb guns, for a $10.

Chicago then bragged that they got so many thousand guns off the streets. I would argue that not a single gun was "taken off the streets." The largest buy back was from a group of boy scouts, using the program to raise money for a trip. How lovely. Several tens of thousands of dollars later, Chicago hasn't done a thing to reduce violent crime.
 
MamaSheepdog":9gmkz7oo said:
Marinea":9gmkz7oo said:
the proliferation of guns (despite Chicago's gun laws)
Click to expand...

The problem is not the number of guns, but the fact that the majority of guns are in the hands of criminals as opposed to law abiding citizens. If every-man had a gun, the cowardly hoodlums would think twice about attacking them.
Click to expand...

I kinda took that part for granted. :)
 
Marinea":12us5g8u said:
MamaSheepdog":12us5g8u said:
Marinea":12us5g8u said:
the proliferation of guns (despite Chicago's gun laws)
Click to expand...

The problem is not the number of guns, but the fact that the majority of guns are in the hands of criminals as opposed to law abiding citizens. If every-man had a gun, the cowardly hoodlums would think twice about attacking them.
Click to expand...

I kinda took that part for granted. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, Marinea- I meant to put in there that I knew YOU knew, but was too tired to do so. :oops:

I've been a bit pressed for time in the past couple of weeks, so have only had time to blurt stuff out there without fully explaining myself.

My apologies. :)

I just wanted to make it clear that stringent gun laws have the opposite effect than purportedly intended.
 
Oh, MSD, no apologies needed from you.

I think I have been pretty clear that my stand on gun control is that I always hit what I aim at. :)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top